Mt. Bhagwati Devi and anr. Vs. Gajadhar Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation

legalcrystal.com/470348

Subject

Criminal

Court

Allahabad

Decided On

Mar-23-1934

Reported in

AIR1934All940

Appellant

Mt. Bhagwati Devi and anr.

Respondent

Gajadhar Prasad

Excerpt: - - 2. in my opinion the court below was (perfectly right in holding that the arbitrator was not competent to review his award, and even on the merits of the case there is not sufficient reason for reducing the rate of maintenance, the husband being a well-to do zamindar......rate of rs. 50 per mensem. after a couple of years the husband applied to the court to have the rate of maintenance reduced. he allowed this application to be struck off once in default, but subsequently renewed it. thereupon the two parties agreed that the matter should be referred to the arbitration of b. huthra prasad. b. muthra praaad, although he served notice on the husband, was unable to secure his attendance, and after waiting for several months he gave ms award ex parte to the effect that there is no substance in the husband's application and the rate of maintenance of rs. 50 per month should be maintained. thereafter the husband applied to the arbitrator for a review of the award. the arbitrator did review his award and amended it by reducing the amount of maintenance from.....

Judgment:ORDER

Kisch, J.

1. This reference which has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Aligarh arises out of an order under Section 489, Criminal P.C., made by a First Class Magistrate. In a previous proceeding the opposite party had been ordered to pay maintenance to the applicant, his wife and his minor son, at the rate of Rs. 50 per mensem. After a couple of years the husband applied to the Court to have the rate of maintenance reduced. He allowed this application to be struck off once in default, but subsequently renewed it. Thereupon the two parties agreed that the matter should be referred to the arbitration of B. Huthra Prasad. B. Muthra Praaad, although he served notice on the husband, was unable to secure his attendance, and after waiting for several months he gave Ms award ex parte to the effect that there is no substance in the husband's application and the rate of maintenance of Rs. 50 per month should be maintained. Thereafter the husband applied to the arbitrator for a review of the award. The arbitrator did review his award and amended it by reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs. 50 to Rs. 30 per month. The Magistrate passed his order under Section 489 in the terms of the amended award. Thereupon the applicant applied to the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision. She contended that once the award had been made by the arbitrator the arbitrator was functus officio and could not review his own award. This argument found favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge who has referred the matter to this Oourt. The husband has not entered appearance at the hearing of the reference.

2. In my opinion the Court below was (perfectly right in holding that the arbitrator was not competent to review his award, and even on the merits of the case there is not sufficient reason for reducing the rate of maintenance, the husband being a well-to do zamindar. I accordingly accept the referenoe, set aside the order of the Magistrate and dismiss the application of the husband under Section 489, Criminal P.C. The applicant is entitled to recover any arrears of maintenance that may be due to her at the rate of Bs. 50 per month.